(SISMONDI and OUR NATIVE SISMONDISTS)

VI

The Foreign Market As the “Way Out
of the Difficulty” of Realising Surplus-Value

Sismondi’snext error, which springs from his fallacious theory of
social revenue and the product in capitalist society, is his doctrine that
the product in general, and surplus-value in particular, cannot possibly
be realised, and that consequently it is necessary to find a foreign
market. As regards the realisation of the product in general, the
foregoing analysing shows that the “impossibility” is due
entirely to the mistaken exclusion of constant capital and means of
production. Once this error is corrected, the “impossibility”
vanishes. The same, however, must be said in particular about
surplus-value: this analysis explains how it too is realised. There are no
reasonable grounds whatever for separating surplus-value from the total
product so far as its realisation is concerned. Sismondi’s (and our
Narodniks’) assertion to the contrary is simply a misunderstanding
of the fundamental laws of realisation
in general, an inability to divide the product into three (and not two)
parts in terms of value, and into two kinds in terms of material form
(means of production and articles of consumption). The proposition that
the capitalists cannot consume surplus-value is merely a vulgarised
repetition of Adam Smith’s perplexity regarding realisation in
general. Only part of the surplus-value consists of articles of
consumption; the other part consists of means of production (for example,
the surplus-value of the ironmaster). The “consumption” of
this latter surplus-value is effected by applying it to
production; the capitalists, however, who manufacture products in the
shape of means of production do not consume surplus-value, but
constant capital obtained by exchange with other
capitalists. Hence, the Narodniks too, in arguing that surplus-value
cannot be realised, ought logically to admit that constant
capital also cannot be realised—and in this way they would
safely go back to Adam. . . . It goes without saying that such a return to
the “father of political economy” would be a gigantic step
forward for writers who present us with old errors in the guise of truths
they have “arrived at by themselves.” . . .

Butwhat about the foreign market? Do we deny that capitalism needs a
foreign market? Of course not. But the question of a foreign market has
absolutely nothing to do with the question of realisation, and
the attempt to link them into one whole merely expresses the romantic wish
to “retard” capitalism, and the romantic inability to think
logically. The theory which has explained the question of realisation has
proved this up to the hilt. The romanticist says: the capitalists cannot
consume surplus-value and therefore must dispose of it abroad. The
question is: do the capitalists supply foreigners with products gratis, or
do they throw them into the sea? They sell them—hence, they receive
an equivalent; they export certain kinds of products—hence, they
import other kinds. If we speak of the realisation of the social product,
we thereby exclude the circulation of money and assume only the exchange
of products for products, since the problem of realisation consists in
analysing the replacement of all parts of the social product in
terms of value and in terms of material form. Hence, to commence the
argument about realisation
and to end it by saying that they “will market the product for
money” is as ridiculous as answering the question about realising
constant capital in the shape of articles of consumption by saying:
“they will sell.” This is simply a gross logical blunder:
people wander away from the question of the realisation of the aggregate
social product to the view point of the individual entrepreneur, who has
no other interest than that of “selling to the foreigner.” To
link foreign trade, exports, with the question of realisation means
evading the issue, merely shifting it to a wider field, but
doing nothing towards clearing it
up.
[1]
The problem of realisation will not be made one iota clearer if, instead
of the market of one country, we take the market of a certain group of
countries. When the Narodniks assert that the foreign market is “the
way out of the
difficulty”[2]
which capitalism raises for itself in the realisation of
the product, they merely use this phrase to cover up the sad fact that for
them “the foreign market” is “the way out of the
difficulty” into which they fall owing to their failure to
understand theory. . . . Not only that. The theory which links the foreign
market with the problem of the realisation of the aggregate social product
not only reveals a failure to understand this realisation, but, in
addition, reveals an extremely superficial understanding of the
contradictions inherent in this realisation. “The workers will
consume wages, but the capitalists cannot consume surplus-value.”
Ponder over this “theory” from the point of view of the
foreign market. How do we know that “the workers will consume
wages”? What grounds have we for thinking that the products intended by
the entire capitalist class of a given country for consumption by all the
workers of that country will really equal their wages in value
and will replace them,
that there will be no need for a foreign market for these
products? There are absolutely no grounds for thinking so, and actually it
is not so at all. Not only the products (or part of the products) which
replace surplus-value, but also those which replace variable capital; not
only products which replace variable capital, but also those which replace
constant capital (forgotten by our “economists” who also
forget their kinship . . . with Adam); not only products that serve as
articles of consumption but also those that serve as means of
production—all these products are realised in the same way, in the
midst of “difficulties,” in the midst of continuous
fluctuations, which become increasingly violent as capitalism grows, in
the midst of fierce competition, which compels every entrepreneur
to strive to expand production unlimitedly, to go beyond the bounds of the
given country, to set out in quest of new markets in countries not yet
drawn into the sphere of capitalist commodity circulation. This brings us
to the question of why a capitalist country needs a foreign
market. Certainly not because the product cannot be realised at all under
the capitalist system. That is nonsense. A foreign market is needed
because it is inherent in capitalist production to strive for
unlimited expansion—unlike all the old modes of production,
which were limited to the village community, to the patriarchal estate, to
the tribe, to a territorial area, or state. Under all the old economic
systems production was every time resumed in the same form and on the same
scale as previously; under the capitalist system, however, this resumption
in the same form becomes impossible, and unlimited
expansion, perpetual progress, becomes the law of
production.[3]

Thus,different conceptions of realisation (more exactly, the
understanding of it, on the one hand, and complete misunderstanding of it
by the romanticists, on the other) lead to two diametrically opposite
views on the significance of the foreign market. For some (the
romanticists), the foreign market is an indication of the
“difficulty” which capitalism places in the way of
social development. For others, on the contrary, the foreign market shows
how
capitalism removes the difficulties of social development
provided by history in the shape of various barriers—communal,
tribal, territorial and
national.
[4]

Asyou see, the difference is only one of the “point of
view.”. . . Yes, “only”! The difference between the romanticist
judges of capitalism and the others is, in general, “only” one
of the “point of view,”—“only” that some judge from the
rear, and the others from the front, some from the viewpoint of a system
which capitalism is destroying, the others from the viewpoint of a system
which capitalism is
creating.[5]

Theromanticists’ wrong understanding of the foreign market usually
goes hand in hand with references to the “specific features”
of the international position of capitalism in the given country, to the
impossibility of finding markets, etc.; the object of all these arguments
is to “dissuade” the capitalists from seeking foreign
markets. Incidentally, we are not being exact in saying
“references,” for the romanticist gives us no actual analysis
of the country’s foreign trade, of its progress in the sphere of new
markets, its colonisation, etc. He has no interest whatever in studying
the actual process and in explaining it; all he wants is a moral
condemnation of this process. So that the reader can convince himself
of the complete identity between this moralising of contemporary Russian
romanticists and that of the French romanticist, we shall quote some
specimens of the latter’s arguments. We have already seen how
Sismondi warned the capitalists that they would find no market. But this
is not all he asserted. He also claimed that “the world market is
already sufficiently supplied” (II, 328) and argued that it was
impossible to proceed along the capitalist path, that it was necessary to
choose another path. . . . He assured the British employers that
capitalism would not be able to give jobs to all the agricultural
labourers displaced by capitalist farming (I, 255-56). “Will those
to whom the agriculturists are sacrificed
derive any benefit from it? Are not the agriculturists the nearest and
most reliable consumers of English manufactures? The cessation of their
consumption would strike industry a blow more fatal than the closing of
one of the biggest foreign markets” (I, 256). He assured English
farmers that they would not be able to withstand the competition of the
poor Polish peasant, whose grain costs him almost nothing (II, 257) and
that they were menaced by the even more frightful competition of Russian
grain from the Black Sea ports. He exclaimed: “The Americans are
following the new principle: to produce without calculating the market
(produire sans calculer le marché), and to produce as much
as possible,” and here is “the characteristic feature of
United States’ trade, from one end of the country to the
other—an excess of goods of every kind over what is needed for
consumption . . . constant bankruptcies are the result of this excess of
commercial capital which cannot be exchanged for revenue” (I,
455-56). Good Sismondi! What would he say about present-day
America—about the America that has developed so enormously, thanks
to the very “home market” which, according to the
romanticists’ theory, should have “shrunk”!

Notes

[1]
This is so clear that even Sismondi was conscious of the need to disregard
foreign trade in analysing realisation. “To trace these calculations
more exactly,” he says on the point about production corresponding
to consumption “and to simplify the question, we have hitherto
completely excluded foreign trade; we have presupposed an isolated nation;
human society itself is such an isolated nation, and whatever relates to a
nation without foreign trade is equally true of the human race” (I,
115).
—Lenin

[5]
I am speaking here only of the appraisal of capitalism and not of an
understanding of it. In the latter respect the romanticists, as we have
seen, stand no higher than the classical economists.
—Lenin